The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on August 20, 1998, at Brevard Community College, Palm Bay Campus Third Floor, Room 337, 250 Community College Parkway, Palm Bay, Florida. Present were: Chairman Helen Voltz, Commissioners Truman Scarborough and Nancy Higgs, and Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer. Absent were: Commissioners Randy O?Brien and Mark Cook, County Manager Tom Jenkins and County Attorney Scott Knox.

Al Pennell, Melbourne-Tillman Water Control District Manager, introduced the Melbourne-Tillman Water Control District Board members present at the meeting, including Bob Riley, Troy Rice, Veronica Autrey, and Keith Mills. He showed a slide presentation explaining what the District does; stated there are over 200 miles of canals; the District cleans the canals; the work is done in two phases; the large canals are done through contract with outside services; and the smaller canals are done in-house. He advised the District?s staff is made up of the diggers who work with the draglines and track hoes; they excavate and clean the soil material; they also use mowers; and the District also has an effective Aquatic Weed Control Program ongoing. Mr. Pennell further showed slides of erosion problems and the District?s operating wheel. He stated the bulk of the District?s operating expense is salaries and benefits; the outside consulting services are another substantial part; and the rest is operating expenses, including the Aquatic Weed Control Program. He advised the District is requesting a 3% increase in its user fees in order to maintain the same level of service it has been providing the last couple of years; there is not an inclusion for additional monies for Western Diversion at this time at it is complete; and there is approximately a 6 1/2% increase in compensation and benefits, which is primarily himself rolling over from the consulting position into the Manager/Engineer?s slot. Mr. Pennell noted the District is compensating that by the fact that it has eliminated its consulting fees for the engineering and operating expense; the operating expenses are slightly up over last year; it is showing as 1.65%, primarily due to the fact that the District wants to use the same level of aquatic weed control as it used last year and the year before, but the cost of acquiring those same units of material has increased approximately 6%. He stated the District will have a minor increase in fuel allocation, primarily due to the fact that it is looking to acquire a rubber tire track hoe; it will give the District more mobility in the canals to place outfall pipes to prevent surface flow over the tops and sides of the canal banks; the District is also completing approximately a 10-year cycle of doing major canal cleanouts, primarily in the residential area, although it has done a number of canal improvements in some of the agricultural areas; and the District needs to expend approximately two years to re-evaluate all those canals. Mr. Pennell advised the County and the City have done a substantial amount of work in their secondary systems draining to it, some of which has resulted in some erosion problems that the District wants to go back and make sure are corrected and the two systems work well together; the equipment will be more mobile, meaning it will be moved more frequently from Point A to Point B than it was last year, which uses up more fuel; the District will also have an increased cost with the Property Appraiser?s Office in that it is requesting the District go computer on-line with it; questions that come in regarding

the District?s fees go to the Property Appraiser?s Office, and it is spending time answering such questions; and if the District was on-line, the questions could be fed directly to the District and it could respond to them. He stated apparently the type of hardware the District needs to have to make sure it can speak on-line through the Internet properly is somewhat costly; there needs to be at least one or two people trained to use it; those are estimated costs in terms of what the District is anticipating it is going to take to come on-line; and he does not have any more detail than that at the present time. Mr. Pennell stated the bulk of the increase is to accommodate the requirement to go on-line and be able to coordinate directly with the Property Appraiser?s Office for those services.

Commissioner Higgs expressed concern with the increased cost and requested additional information from the Property Appraiser?s Office prior to the September 8, 1998 budget hearing. Mr. Pennell stated the District will get something more definitive from the Property Appraiser?s Office and provide it to the Board.

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer inquired does this have a relationship to getting access to the Property Appraiser?s data base for the District?s billing purposes; with Rita Hutchinson, Treasurer to the District, responding affirmatively.

Commissioner Higgs stated what needs to be clarified are the hardware costs from the Property Appraiser?s Office.

Commissioner Higgs requested Mr. Pennell explain the travel/certification and licensing. Mr. Pennell responded they have increased substantially due to the requirement that all personnel who work in Aquatic Weed Control have to be certified; everyone is up for the certification which is approximately 13 employees; and the certification typically involves travel, so the two are usually tied together. He advised the capital expenditures have been reduced this year, primarily so the District could stay in line with its operating costs; it is trying to do the same types of projects it did last year; it has reduced the number of equipment it is purchasing; and this year it is only one piece of equipment. Mr. Pennell stated with a 3% increase, the District can maintain the same level of service as it did last year; it is not increasing personnel and is reducing support staff; and by next year, there may be further reductions due to merging the Manager/Engineer slot.

Chairman Voltz stated she discussed with Mr. Pennell the restructuring of the District?s rates, and currently an empty lot and a lot with a house on it pay the same rate but do not make the same impact; and inquired how can that be accomplished. Mr. Pennell responded in 1986 when the District was changed from a 298 District to its current status, he prepared a land use assessment for the District; there were 250 different types of land uses in the District; the Legislative Delegation requested the District reduce it; and the District cut it down to approximately 10 different land use categories, primarily to differentiate between undeveloped residential lots and residential lots with a house on it. He advised the Delegation felt that historically, the District always based its user fees on three land use categories, generally being residential, commercial and agriculture; there was no reason to change it, as the County was already structured to collect the fees in that way; and that is the way the decision was made to continue.

Mr. Pennell stated he does not disagree with what Chairman Voltz is saying that it may be fairer to do that; the District would need to evaluate what the actual fees should be, which would be appropriate; one of the District?s Board members had some discussion with a couple of the Delegates; and the general feeling was that the District should wait until after the election period before it further discusses the issue. He noted he is not sure whether it would be better as a request coming from the County to the Legislative Delegation than from Melbourne-Tillman, primarily because the Legislative intent in 1986 was specifically to have the County as an overseer budget- wise on the District; he would not want the District to be perceived as going to the Legislative Delegation trying to get out from underneath the County and pushing it off to the side; and with discussion and input from both the County and the District?s Board, it may find a way to appropriately proceed.

Chairman Voltz stated currently the District has to come to the Board every year for an increase, but if it is done the other way, then the District would naturally grow with growth and development which should fund the District?s budget. Mr. Pennell stated he would rather see it done as a joint effort or a decided interest being expressed by the County to the Delegation so there is no appearance of the District trying to weasel out of an obligation.

Commissioner Higgs stated there is a $33,004 difference between personnel salaries this year compared to next year. Mr. Pennell responded it is primarily rolling what were the engineer?s fees from an expense item into a salaried item; he is making more money than Gary Garrison made because he is serving as the Manager and still carrying the capacity as a professional engineer and the Engineer for the District.

Commissioner Scarborough commented on the distinction between recurring and non-recurring expenses. Mr. Pennell stated in the future the District may want to separate line items and identify them more specifically.

Paul Williams inquired what was Gary Garrison?s salary; with Mr. Pennell responding approximately $55,000 or $60,000. Mr. Williams inquired what was the District paying Mr. Pennell as a consultant; with Mr. Pennell responding $100 an hour, and he is presently earning $75,000. Mr. Williams stated that is almost as much as when Mr. Garrison was the Manager and Mr. Pennell was the consultant, so it is only about a 10% decrease. Mr. Williams stated the District has an Agreement with St. Johns River Water Management District to divert water from Melbourne-Tillman Drainage District into the St. Johns River; the District Engineer for the St. Johns District has indicated it will be at the maximum 10% of the Melbourne-Tillman?s water going into St. Johns River at a cost of $25 million preliminary which may escalate to $50 million; the whole purpose of this was to "clean up the Indian River"; and he cannot see it. He inquired how many miles of Melbourne-Tillman canals are now part

PUBLIC COMMENTS (CONTINED)

of the St. Johns system; with Mr. Pennell responding approximately nine or 10 miles. Mr. Williams stated that is 5% that has been removed; the Melbourne-Tillman District no longer maintains that; it has a smaller District and a smaller tax base, yet the District still wants more money to operate it. Mr. Pennell responded the District is not physically getting to all of its canals today; and it is not doing 100% of the job. Mr. Williams expressed concern regarding the certification; stated all that is needed is one supervisor; and everyone does not have to be certified. He stated last year the County Commission and the Melbourne-Tillman District enacted a user fee; and it was to be a one-year fee. Mr. Pennell stated Mr. Williams may be referencing the fact that last year the District had requested a 3% increase in user fees for operations and a 7% increase that was to help fund the Western Diversion Project; that was a one-time request; and it has not been asked for this year.

Chairman Voltz stated it was not for one year and was on-going; this year the District thought it was going to add an additional 10%; and when Mr. Pennell came into her office she told him it was a one-time request and the District was not going to get 10% every year which is what the District had assumed was going to happen.

Mr. Williams stated he was under the impression that the user fee was a one-time deal; and now the District is requesting not only to continue it, but a 3% increase in it.

Chairman Voltz stated the District has no way of increasing its revenue under any circumstances because it charges the same for a vacant lot as it does for a lot with a home on it; its budget does not increase with development which is what it should do; and in order to get any increases, the District has to come to the Board. She noted if development would pay as it grew, the District would not have to come to the Board every year and ask for an increase; and that is not happening right now.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired was anything said last year that there would be an increase only for one year and then it would go to roll back. Chairman Voltz stated Commissioner Cook asked last year if the District was going to come to the Board every year for a 10% increase, and the District responded no.

Bob Riley, Board of Directors of Melbourne-Tillman, stated when the District established the request last year, it entered into an Agreement with St. Johns River Water Management District on a debt service and agreed it would participate in the Land Purchase Program; the Melbourne-Tillman District had a certain amount of money it was obligated to pay; there were numerous ways it could cover that; and the way it chose to do it last year was that the 7% or the portion that would be applied to the long-term debt service would then be applied to the purchase of the land. He advised once the land purchase has been completed and the debt service with the St. Johns District has been completed, the rate would drop; depending on how much the rate would be increased every year, the debt would be retired earlier; if such rate were not increased, the debt service would be extended; and the Melbourne-Tillman District is in negotiations with the St. Johns District as to how long the debt service would be.

PUBLIC COMMENTS (CONTINUED)

Mr. Williams stated he is scared to death of the herbicide Sonar; it will settle out into the bottom and be reactivated under turbulence, such as a hurricane; once it is reactivated, it is going to start killing all the vegetation, not just in the canals; and it killed approximately 300 acres of pasture vegetation on the southwest corner before it became a part of the St. Johns River Water Management District.

Mr. Pennell stated his District will look into the use of Sonar and evaluate it. Chairman Voltz stated she would appreciate getting some information on such herbicide also.

Mr. Williams stated agriculture is not booming; the margin shrinks year by year; and part of the shrinkage is due to increased taxes. He noted if he cannot prevent a tax from increasing, he may be able to prevent it from increasing more than is absolutely necessary; and requested the County Commission keep that in mind.

Frank Platt stated he hates to see his taxes increased any higher as they are too high now.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the County Commission has been strong on not having any increases this year; and Mr. Pennell may be wise to prepare for the two other Commissioners who are probably going to ask him the question of how the District can maintain a zero increase in its user fee.

Mr. Pennell stated he would probably cut back on the herbicide Sonar; the consequence would be a probable increase in labor costs in doing mechanical removal of hydrilla; and it would most likely affect the number of mowing canal miles the District would do.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant tentative approval of 3% increase as requested by the Melbourne-Tillman Water Control District; schedule it for consideration at the September 8, 1998 Budget Hearing; and request the District provide information prior to the hearing concerning certification and travel costs, clarification on the salary issue of the prior Melbourne-Tillman District Manager?s salary versus the current Manager?s salary, use of the herbicide Sonar, and the Property Appraiser?s computer hardware cost. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough requested Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer get information on who else is using the herbicide Sonar.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m.

__________________________________

ATTEST: HELEN VOLTZ, CHAIRMAN

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

_________________________

SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK

(S E A L)